Mock Presidential Race pt. 2

oceanhawk wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

If the government gives them money they will lose incentive to actually do it properly, it is better if their own stakes and investments are involved. Public funded privately run, is eve worse than publicly funded and publicly run

If they are just getting paid by the government they may not even bother actually doing the reseach etc as they already making money. It is better if they or other companies in the private market invest, as with the risk there will also come an incentive to work harder and not slouch.

This happened when they built the first planes, the government financed one company, they took the money and then said " it cant be done" meanwhile 2 brothers took some of their own cash and invested it in their business. Because they have put in money etc, they worked hard and then the Wright brothers made the first aeroplane, there are many examples of this.

Incentives are small enough to mean that the company or scientific institute researching can't survive solely of them. And there have been many cases where revolutionary breakthroughs have been delayed because people didn't have the money to continue research.

oceanhawk wrote:

See price controls will destroy incentives to have improve healthcare, and will then there will end up with very little healthcare available, and the little services provided, only the wealthy will have access.

It is better to encourage and support small GPs etc and make a more competitive market which will lower healthcare costs..

I do admit price controls give a bit of a 'dis-incentive', but if the NHS is privatised, we have to make sure that people can afford private healthcare. Reducing prices doesn't necessarily mean that you are making the health industry unprofitable.

oceanhawk wrote:

Okay, well that is awful. That is just disgusting. That will destroy the incentives to have wealth. And wealthy people and companies will leave the UK, and take their investments with them. Now with us losing so much companies following the brexit, do you really think it is a good time to drive more companies from the UK?

Dude, those tax rates I just gave are like really low. Currently in the UK, anyone over 32,000 gets taxed just over 40%. It goes up to 50% when you earn more than 150,000. So I lowered them a lot. i honestly don't know where you're going to get the money from.

oceanhawk wrote:

That is a very very very bad idea. The government giving money out, is not an incentive. It will create large monopolies. So not only are big companies doing well, but now they get huge amount of money from the government. So they will become lazy and ineficent , wont innovate at all, mean while small business wont be able to break into any market..

Errrrr... If you read the post I said I will subsidize small businesses.

Quasi-duck wrote:

*makes use of report fucntion*

There's no such thing as a 'report fucntion'.

Then use grants, but publicly funding private enterprise is just as bad as public funded + public run ( and lets be honest id there was really was hints towards a scientific break through, people would be throwing their money trying to invest)

Yes but it is destroying the incentive to have wealth, price controls are the worst thing.

Firstly economic lesson,

The Laffer curve is a simple economic principle, once a tax rate goes above 30% the amount of income from tax falls.

This idea, I recently watched a good video about it, discussed by the head of the board of economic advisors to president OBAMA, so even the most left wing economists agree on this. So no tax rate should ever be above 30%

And ideally it should be lower

Get money for what?

Lower tax rates bring more money, ( until it gets below 29%)

K but governments really need to keep a step back form private enterprise, for every bodies benefitd

Pablo22510 wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

If the government gives them money they will lose incentive to actually do it properly, it is better if their own stakes and investments are involved. Public funded privately run, is eve worse than publicly funded and publicly run

If they are just getting paid by the government they may not even bother actually doing the reseach etc as they already making money. It is better if they or other companies in the private market invest, as with the risk there will also come an incentive to work harder and not slouch.

This happened when they built the first planes, the government financed one company, they took the money and then said " it cant be done" meanwhile 2 brothers took some of their own cash and invested it in their business. Because they have put in money etc, they worked hard and then the Wright brothers made the first aeroplane, there are many examples of this.

Incentives are small enough to mean that the company or scientific institute researching can't survive solely of them. And there have been many cases where revolutionary breakthroughs have been delayed because people didn't have the money to continue research.

oceanhawk wrote:

See price controls will destroy incentives to have improve healthcare, and will then there will end up with very little healthcare available, and the little services provided, only the wealthy will have access.

It is better to encourage and support small GPs etc and make a more competitive market which will lower healthcare costs..

I do admit price controls give a bit of a 'dis-incentive', but if the NHS is privatised, we have to make sure that people can afford private healthcare. Reducing prices doesn't necessarily mean that you are making the health industry unprofitable.

oceanhawk wrote:

Okay, well that is awful. That is just disgusting. That will destroy the incentives to have wealth. And wealthy people and companies will leave the UK, and take their investments with them. Now with us losing so much companies following the brexit, do you really think it is a good time to drive more companies from the UK?

Dude, those tax rates I just gave are like really low. Currently in the UK, anyone over 32,000 gets taxed just over 40%. It goes up to 50% when you earn more than 150,000. So I lowered them a lot. i honestly don't know where you're going to get the money from.

oceanhawk wrote:

That is a very very very bad idea. The government giving money out, is not an incentive. It will create large monopolies. So not only are big companies doing well, but now they get huge amount of money from the government. So they will become lazy and ineficent , wont innovate at all, mean while small business wont be able to break into any market..

Errrrr... If you read the post I said I will subsidize small businesses.

Quasi-duck wrote:

*makes use of report fucntion*

There's no such thing as a 'report fucntion'.

Then use grants, but publicly funding private enterprise is just as bad as public funded + public run ( and lets be honest id there was really was hints towards a scientific break through, people would be throwing their money trying to invest)

Yes but it is destroying the incentive to have wealth, price controls are the worst thing.

Firstly economic lesson,

The Laffer curve is a simple economic principle, once a tax rate goes above 30% the amount of income from tax falls.

This idea, I recently watched a good video about it, discussed by the head of the board of economic advisors to president OBAMA, so even the most left wing economists agree on this. So no tax rate should ever be above 30%

And ideally it should be lower

Get money for what?

Lower tax rates bring more money, ( until it gets below 29%)

K but governments really need to keep a step back form private enterprise, for every bodies benefitd

Pablo22510 wrote:

C'mon, gay-sounding Englishman Ellio! I was just kidding! Vote for me and you'll get candy from the 'FREE CANDY' van.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Pablo was just being an ass, have you heard his voice yet?

Also @Diabolical go away i carnt tell if you have a bible up ya bum or just dumb

Quasi-duck wrote:

Oh, that's rich. I'm obviously a mallard.

Yeah....still don't know what that means...wait, isn't a mallard a male duck?

Ellio_98 wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

C'mon, gay-sounding Englishman Ellio! I was just kidding! Vote for me and you'll get candy from the 'FREE CANDY' van.

Sure, sounds great...NOT. I would rather vote trump

Quasi-duck wrote:

Pablo was just being an ass, have you heard his voice yet?

Nope not yet

Also @Diabolical go away i carnt tell if you have a bible up ya bum or just dumb

And though I have an ornamental bible small enough to fit there, it isn't there.

And I'm not dumb.

So...what else you got, hm???

.

.

.

Still waiting to get the ITP into the elections.

.

.

Diabolical wrote:

wait, isn't a mallard a male duck?

Quasi-duck wrote:

Diabolical wrote:

wait, isn't a mallard a male duck?

Yep.

Diabolical wrote:

Bingo! What'd I win?

Quasi-duck wrote:

Diabolical wrote:

Bingo! What'd I win?

Pocket edition of the Qur'an.

...yay...

@oceanhawk I forgot to post something, 'cos it's damn hard on my mum's phone. Btw, reading 'Free to Choose' right now. As this Wikipedia article rightly says (Milton Friedman), Milton Friedman was an economic liberal. Which is what I am, too. I did some research, and there is a difference between liberalism here and over there. Here in Spain a 'liberal' is someone like Milton Friedman, someone who advocates for minimum government intervention and advocates for the liberty of people. In other words, a liberal here is an economic liberal. And apparently up there, a liberal is one with liberal social policies, which is pretty good, but some parties have distorted social liberalism, like the liberals in Ireland.

Pablo22510 wrote:

@oceanhawk I forgot to post something, 'cos it's damn hard on my mum's phone. Btw, reading 'Free to Choose' right now. As this Wikipedia article rightly says (Milton Friedman), Milton Friedman was an economic liberal. Which is what I am, too. I did some research, and there is a difference between liberalism here and over there. Here in Spain a 'liberal' is someone like Milton Friedman, someone who advocates for minimum government intervention and advocates for the liberty of people. In other words, a liberal here is an economic liberal. And apparently up there, a liberal is one with liberal social policies, which is pretty good, but some parties have distorted social liberalism, like the liberals in Ireland.

Liberal are center left, like Hillary Clinton, where as Sanders may be a bit further left hence socialist

Liberal social views are existant in some conservative parties, but in all Libertarian parties, they core beliefs are that of social freedom and economic freedom.

Milton Friedman was brilliant, for the communists with poor intellectual ability, because they are commies, if they want to be considered "intelligent" visit http://www.miltonfriedman.org/

oceanhawk wrote:

Liberal are center left, like Hillary Clinton, where as Sanders may be a bit further left hence socialist

GreatbigHippo wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Liberal are center left, like Hillary Clinton, where as Sanders may be a bit further left hence socialist

American democrats are (generally) right. They are just slightly less right than republicans.

but those two in particular were rather left wing

Not all democrats are liberal do, some conservative but wont join the republicans, cos the republican party is a bit of a disgrace to the conservative ideals...

oceanhawk wrote:

K, he is my idol for economic thoughts. I learnt so much from him, and he wasnt a conservative or liberal, however he was a libertarian (far right wing)

Liberal are center left, like Hillary Clinton, where as Sanders may be a bit further left hence socialist

Liberal social views are existant in some conservative parties, but in all Libertarian parties, they core beliefs are that of social freedom and economic freedom.

Milton Friedman was brilliant, for the communists with poor intellectual ability, because they are commies, if they want to be considered "intelligent" visit miltonfriedman.org/

Pablo22510 wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

K, he is my idol for economic thoughts. I learnt so much from him, and he wasnt a conservative or liberal, however he was a libertarian (far right wing)

Liberal are center left, like Hillary Clinton, where as Sanders may be a bit further left hence socialist

Liberal social views are existant in some conservative parties, but in all Libertarian parties, they core beliefs are that of social freedom and economic freedom.

Milton Friedman was brilliant, for the communists with poor intellectual ability, because they are commies, if they want to be considered "intelligent" visit miltonfriedman.org/

Dude, you read the link I gave you? It says he was a LIBERAL, for God's sake! An economic one, yeah, but economic liberalism is the best thing on this planet. And he's a liberal. Say no one more time and I'll explode.

just watch this video, one of Milton Friedman friends, they are very similar on ideologies, this is just what I am watching now

I will dig out this now, gimme 2 secs

Liberals are on the left, conservatives are on the right.. are you debating that?

liberals today are not right, originally it would have bene put on the right, but today it is left..

oceanhawk wrote:

how! no,, jezz

just watch this video, one of Milton Friedman friends, they are very similar on ideologies, this is just what I am watching now

I will dig out this now, gimme 2 secs

Liberals are on the left, conservatives are on the right.. are you debating that?

oceanhawk wrote:

how! no,, jezz

just watch this video, one of Milton Friedman friends, they are very similar on ideologies, this is just what I am watching

oceanhawk wrote:

I will dig out this now, gimme 2 secs

Liberals are on the left, conservatives are on the right.. are you debating that?

liberals today are not right, originally it would have bene put on the right, but today it is left..

Do you still deny it?

Pablo22510 wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

how! no,, jezz

just watch this video, one of Milton Friedman friends, they are very similar on ideologies, this is just what I am watching

*explodes*

oceanhawk wrote:

I will dig out this now, gimme 2 secs

Liberals are on the left, conservatives are on the right.. are you debating that?

liberals today are not right, originally it would have bene put on the right, but today it is left..

YES I AM DEBATING THAT. LOOK AT THE ATTACHMENTS!Do you still deny it?

he is refering to classic liberalism, which is basicaly conservatism....

jeine mac and chesse you cannot be serious ::smacks face::

didnt think you were this far behind lol

Now, what is the most free ideal?

LIBERTARIANISM!

oceanhawk wrote:

jeine mac and chesse you cannot be serious ::smacks face::

oceanhawk wrote:

eepers, you are lost

he is refering to classic liberalism, which is basicaly conservatism....

jeine mac and chesse you cannot be serious ::smacks face::

oceanhawk wrote:

Now, what is the most free ideal?

LIBERTARIANISM!